-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Wine in the first century
- Thread starter Phillip
- Start date
- Status
I don’t know that it’s right to go there. God made us as sexual beings; did he contribute to the perversion of our society? He created food; does He contribute to the obesity in America? The Hebrews certainly viewed wine as being from God, but I don’t know that they pictured God as contributing to the drunkenness of Noah.
glfredrick
New Member
Just wondering why we are running around acting as if God doesn't know about wine...
Did He create everything? Does He know everything? Then why would we think that we might have created something that He either doesn't know about, or did not plan into creation?
Did He create everything? Does He know everything? Then why would we think that we might have created something that He either doesn't know about, or did not plan into creation?
This is emotional- not rational or logical.
It is not an argument- it is emotional banter.
I was raised in an alcoholic home. My father died a drunkard. I gave the permission to take him off life support.
But all of that is emotional- not a rational argument.
Legalism does to the soul more damage than alcoholism does to the body.
I don't know of a reputable theologian on earth who would disagree with this.
There are far more people going to hell because of legalism than there are because of alcoholism.
The spirit of teetotalism is often a spirit of legalism which rots the soul more than alcohol could ever hope to rot the gut.
I am not saying that all teetotalists are legalists. I used to be a teetotaler. But I am saying many are and the spirit of it tends to be born of legalism.
The Bible speaks positively of alcohol on numerous occasions. Those who deny this fact tend to be legalists.
Legalism tends to self-righteousness, holier-than-thou, and works salvation- which are all far uglier spiritually than the physical ugliness of alcoholism.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not a reasonable comparison. God cannot be blamed because alcohol exists. But if He stood in the midst of people getting drunk and then supplied them with more alcohol as they were getting drunk then we have a serious theological problem.
Oh, I would agree. But this is making assumptions regarding the wedding feast. Also, the blame wouldn’t be on God because alcohol exists but because He made it.
It’s really something that one is going to presuppose on the issue based on their experience or ideas regarding alcohol and its use. From a historical perspective, and assuming that the Jews at the feast were not Hellenistic (which is a reasonable assumption), the wine was probably wine.
Since I don’t drink, it doesn’t matter to me. I’ve heard the argument that drinking is wrong because it can cause a brother to stumble. But my experience has been the opposite – that firm stances on strict abstinence has caused brethren to stumble.
The problem is not that of getting drunk, but of being a drunkard. Eating to much at Thanksgiving does not make you a glutton. Taking a day off to rest and do no work does not make you a sluggard.
I have heard people rant on about how buying and drinking alcohol damages our witness. How much more damage do we do by not rightly handling the Word of God and instead take the easy route of just saying it's bad, when God does not even do that? We ought not draw lines in the sand that God Himself does not draw.
I have heard people rant on about how buying and drinking alcohol damages our witness. How much more damage do we do by not rightly handling the Word of God and instead take the easy route of just saying it's bad, when God does not even do that? We ought not draw lines in the sand that God Himself does not draw.
Something like this:
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=1156
Or this:
http://www.namb.net/self-assessment/
Absolutely right.
Emotions are God given, not wrong. If I were you, I would hate liquor with a Godly passion for what it did to your father. But you want facts. Here's one: about 10% of all who drink alcohol become alcoholics. Therefore, if you are drinking, you are playing Russian Roulette with your ministry and your family. And think of the example you are leaving to your children, 10% of who, if they drink, will become alcoholics. This alone would keep me from drinking, never mind all other arguments, emotional, logical or Scriptural.
And you speak of Scripture. I have examined every single verse that speaks of alcohol over and over, often in the original. The fact is that a tiny minority of those verses can be used to justify alcohol consumption. And the ones against it are full of dire warnings:
"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." (Prov. 20
."Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes? They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine. Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder. {an...: or, a cockatrice} Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things. Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast. {the midst...: Heb. the heart of the sea} They have stricken me, shalt thou say, and I was not sick; they have beaten me, and I felt it not: when shall I awake? I will seek it yet again." (Proverbs 23:29-35)
Etc., etc.
Ah yes, the fallacious argument from authority. You cannot prove this statement in any way, shape or form.
No it is based on the notion that Jesus made fermented wine.
My grandfather died of type II diabetes. Should I hate sugar for what it did to my grandfather?
Emotions are fine if they are not alone.
First of all, 10% is a small percentage. This would be more useful to you if it were 40 or 50%.
For example: 35% of Americans are obese. So let's prohibit McDonalds, Burger King, Outback Steakhouse and all very fattening foods and restaurants in America and let's preach against fat.
But that would make us almost as legalistic as preaching against all recreational usage of alcohol makes us.
Because a larger percentage of people who eat fattening foods become gluttons than people who drink alcoholic beverages become alcoholics.
This is not a good argument. This argument would be laughed off the stage as it were if it were employed in any European country.
MILLIONS of ministers drink responsibly around this world without any threat whatsoever of becoming drunkards.
This is really only an argument that would be employed here because we are still in the dreadful wake of prohibitionism.
And your percentage is not applicable to social drinking Christians. I dare say that MOST of the people who become drunkards have no DESIRE to drink in moderation. They INTEND to get drunk regularly and often.
We're talking about people who drink responsibly.
What percentage of church going, missions supporting, tithing, bible believing, Christ loving Christians who drink alcohol become drunkards around this world?
And since MOST Christians around the world have no problem with social drinking there are HUNDREDS of millions to choose from.
I think most of us know instinctively that the percentage of these people who become drunkards is MINISCULE.
Once again the 10% is meaningless. Not only is it so small as not to cause much fear but it is not accurate as it applies to Christians who drink responsibly.
I should very much like to employ your statistic in support of MY argument.
Consider this. NINETY PERCENT of people who drink, including all the non-Christian people, including all the irresponsible teens- NINETY PERCENT of them NEVER become drunkards!!
Astounding support for Christians having no fear to drink responsibly.
This is blatantly wrong. Numerous passages support the drinking of alcohol. The church has known this for nearly two thousand years.
It was never a real issue until the advent of prohibitionism in this country a little better than a hundred years ago.
"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." (Prov. 20
"Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes? They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine. Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder. {an...: or, a cockatrice} Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things. Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast. {the midst...: Heb. the heart of the sea} They have stricken me, shalt thou say, and I was not sick; they have beaten me, and I felt it not: when shall I awake? I will seek it yet again." (Proverbs 23:29-35)
This is what convinced me that my legalistic stance on alcohol was wrong.
Take away the Proverbs, which are not by nature precepts but general truths with plenty of exceptions, and you have NO sensible scriptural argument.
The lazy man does not ALWAYS fall into poverty. HUNDREDS of MILLIONS have died rich.
The diligent man does not always become wealthy- billions have died poor.
Anyone who would take the proverbs to establish a doctrine needs to take another class in hermeneutics and understand the differences in interpreting different types of biblical literature.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you misunderstood me. By making assumptions regarding the wedding feast I mean you are assuming that they were getting drunk.
Thanks. I didn’t know if it was total abstinence or drinking a little, or what. The context seemed to be abstinence, but I have seen it applied to those who drink little.
While I have seen what you described many times I would not blame that on alcohol but the person. People can abuse most anything and harm others. I grew up in a home where my parents were grape farmers and seldom drank any alcohol and they were never even close to tipsy. My dad beat mom my mom a lot. His problem was not alcohol but pride. He had not achieved what he wanted in life. He was easily intimidated by one who was well educated. His parents were completely different. They had a great marriage. I tend to think there is a deeper problem than just the drink.
Exactly.
Jesus said, "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man."
Matthew 15:11
"A. Alcohol and Substance Abuse: Have you used alcohol as a beverage or used illegal drugs within the last 12 months?" Isn't the statement lumping abuse and use together?
I sure would not put alcohol use under the heading of abusing anything unless it was abuse.
I wonder what the SBC would think of some of the Baptist churches in other countries who use wine in communion? Wouldn't that be rather inconsistent?
- Status